“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,”

So you draw the line at straight cash. I guess that is a start. As far as giving money as a gift people give money as a gift all the time.

Timing is important and this is a situation where the dinner, and its more than just a dinner as its a celebration of these justices, is sponsored by a litigant with an upcoming case before the court.

If you don't care then you don't care. You are fine to take that position but I find that unsettling that you, and particularly SamFisher, would take such a permissive line regarding conflict of interest.

Considering that the NCAA doesn't even allow athletes and recruits to get those things from boosters I don't see why it shouldn't be so hard to expect such things from judges.

I agree that bribery is difficult to prove so I would hold off before charging them with it, I think they are definitely out to curry favor. I think that Thomas and Scalia should recuse themselves. What would've been better is they should've never gone to the event.

You have a good point there.

 

Why? Because there are no witnesses, and there are generally no facts to find (other than the original jurisdiction cases - of which there's about 1 every 10 years when a state sues another state). It's an appellate court. Of course they're going to encounter questions of law before they decide cases. How else would they decide cases? [/quote]

So basically because it is difficult to prove you are fine with relaxing the standards of what might be conflict of interests.

Ah the classic SamFisher strategy of insult by referring to another poster.

You have yet to provide much evidence for harm can you provide specific examples of how judges recusing themselves causes harm?

Would you agree with me that at the minimum judges shouldn't be attending events in their honor thrown by litigants?

How often though is materiality available? To use another example if a booster buys a car for a recruit and that recruit comes to that booster's school can you prove for certain that the booster's gift induced the recruit?

 

Thank you. I am glad to hear that some posters actually care about possible conflict of interest. I don't actually think it would be that unrealistic. As I said before the NCAA imposes such regulations and if we can expect those for athletes and boosters I don't see why we shouldn't expect those for judges, particularly the USSC.

It comes down to me about what are our expectations for the judicial system? Do we want to hold it to a high standard or do we want to be cynical about it.

 

It's not "relaxing the standards" - it's the rules for scoring a touchdown vs. the rules for scoring a 3 point shot. They are different things.

It's difficult (for you) to prove because it's not there. You've had 3 days to justify your formulation now and to tell me why your proposed system of juror-like disqualification for judges isn't both 1) unworkable and 2) ridiculous or even articulate why it's needed.

And the classic Rocketsjudoka tactic of acting like a whiny centrist with wounded pride. There are black and whites, and here your pathological need for balance is obscuring a silly statement on your part.

If you asked every judge who has experience in criminal cases in a district to not judge criminal cases...YOU WOULD HAVE NOBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TO JUDGE MATTERS . If you asked every judge on the Supreme Court who had previously studied or ruled on a legal issue to not rule on a case with that issue YOU WOULD HAVE NO JUSTICES TO RULE ON CASES AT ALL. Etc, ad nauseum until you'd have to just flip a coin, since the coin is "bias free".

All in return for your counterintuitive argument that having previous experience in an area somehow makes you less likely to make a good legal judgment.

That's the harm. Understand?